Camcorder for low light situations

[tsort]

I am looking for at camcorder for low light situations, meaning indoors and in not to well lit situations.
Mostly the camera will be for documenting labratory experiments and photographic sessions.

I have been looking at Canon HF S10 and similar camcorders, but I am not certain that I need a ful HD camcorder.
The key is that the picture is decent enough when shoot under poor lighting conditions and that the clips are easy to edit afterwards. I do not want to spend a fortune since the camcorder only is for documenting, for me to be able to review what has been done so far.

Do anyone have any suggestions, tips och ideas?

//Regards Daniel

[mp3superfreak]

Hi Daniel, I have also been in search of the perfect low-light camcorder and here's what I've concluded;

1) DSLR's such as the Canon 7D or 5dmk2 provide the largest video sensor for the buck
2) The Canon HFS-10 / 100 camcorders are among the best at the $1000 US price point
3) The Sony EX series Cine cameras do a good job but are very pricey $$$

DPReview has a great article HERE

There are drawbacks to any camera/camcorder you choose. For example, the Canon 5Dmk2/7D shoot breathtaking video, but have a limit of 12 minute clips for 720/1080HD or 24 minutes 480p. This may not be a problem if you can break down your lab experiments into shorter segments (the 12/24 minute limitation is "per clip", not total. It has to do with the file limitation of the FAT32 file system). Sensor size is the main benefit of the DSLR's and you'll see what I'm referring to if you read the DPReview link as it gives a visual representation of sensor size differences.

I have a Canon 7D and have been stunned by the video quality. I took some footage during Halloween at night, using only available street lights at 6400 ISO using my 50mm f/1.8 lens. The resulting video was truly impressive. Be warned, current DSLR's such as the 5dmk2/7d, require manual focusing during video capture. This is a deal breaker for many who depend on autofocus for video.

I've also used the Canon HFS-10 and was totally impressed by it's video. I didn't get a chance to try it indoors, but given the relatively small sensor, I wouldn't expect miracles. Hey, think about it this way, even News Videographer's use on camera lights with their $50k plus cameras.

Also, you can pick up a nice 126-LED camera/camcorder light on eBay for around $60 US. This would assist the low-light performance of any camcorder you may decide to purchase.

[tsort]

I have been considering a DSLR camera with video-capability.
But I am not 100% certain that it is the easiest way of getting OK image quality and video recording performace.

//Daniel

[poisondeathray]

that the clips are easy to edit afterwards.

None of the above will be "easy to edit." All h.264 aquisition formats (including all those listed above, AVCHD etc...) need either a very fast computer, or use a digital intermediate or proxy editing. The XDCAM series shoots with MPEG2, so that's much easier to edit, but the price of entry for the low end is ~$6-7K

HDV will be easier to edit, but has it's own issues, like tape workflow, anamorphic image (not full raster), macroblocking with high complexity scenes. There is only 1 consumer series available, but you should be able to find used models very cheap - the canon hv 20/30/40 series.

Another thing to beware of the "DLSR type" cameras are the aliasing they all suffer from. The processor isn't fast enough to sample 24 or 30 frames/second at full frame size from the huge sensor, only 7-8 or so, to get around this, all of them sample pixels or bin pixels (they take every 3rd or 4th pixel). As a result you get jaggies , aliasing and moire. But as mentioned earlier, low light capability is usually much better than "traditional" camcorders

[papakilo]

Take a look at the Flip Ultra HD. I does very good video in low light, I use it indoors all the time and get video that looks better than what I actually see. It produces .mp4 files that I can edit in Vegas movie studio. It only does 2 hours of video at a time (until you unload it to a computer) See it at: http://www.theflip.com/en-us/Products/ultra.aspx#/meet-ultra

[mp3superfreak]

Oops, my apologies for not seeing the "easy to edit afterwards" portion of the original post. I totally agree that AVCHD is a real PAIN to edit, but IMHO, much easier than capturing HDV from a tape-based camcorder. Vegas will edit the AVCHD files natively, but playback in preview is horribly slow. I usually process my 7D clips with MPEGStreamclip and convert to Avid DNXHD before editing in Vegas. File sizes are HUGE, but editing is much easier.

(not to get off topic, but) I would have to argue poisondeahtray's comment about DSLR's video. I have lots of 720/60p footage I slow down to 24p in Vegas and have no problem using each frame as a screenshot if I want. I've also used some stills from 1080/24p footage to print nice 5x7's. I agree there is a problem with rolling shutter and aliasing in some instances, but it is not the norm in my footage.

Back to Daniel's original question, I'm thinking he wants suggestions. I've seen the Canon HV20/30/40 mentioned and the Flip Ultra HD, anyone else? It may also be helpful to send links to low-light example footage from the camera you are suggesting. Here is an example of the 7D from Vincent LaForet:

http://www.vimeo.com/8595246

[poisondeathray]

I apologize for the continuing the offtopic ....

Oops, my apologies for not seeing the "easy to edit afterwards" portion of the original post. I totally agree that AVCHD is a real PAIN to edit, but IMHO, much easier than capturing HDV from a tape-based camcorder. Vegas will edit the AVCHD files natively, but playback in preview is horribly slow. I usually process my 7D clips with MPEGStreamclip and convert to Avid DNXHD before editing in Vegas. File sizes are HUGE, but editing is much easier.

You will notice the luminance clamped compared to the native clips when using mpegstreamclip to convert. Compare a native clip that has highlights, to a same clip that was processed by mpegstreamclip and dnxhd in the waveform monitor. With less dynamic range, you have fewer options for color correction etc...this may or maynot be important to you. Casual users probably won't even notice. Now do the same clip using vegas to encode to dnxhd, reimport , and check the waveform monitor and see the difference.

(not to get off topic, but) I would have to argue poisondeahtray's comment about DSLR's video. I have lots of 720/60p footage I slow down to 24p in Vegas and have no problem using each frame as a screenshot if I want. I've also used some stills from 1080/24p footage to print nice 5x7's. I agree there is a problem with rolling shutter and aliasing in some instances, but it is not the norm in my footage.

Certainly it is possible to get alias free footage, but it really depends on the shot. If you shoot anything with lines e.g. a person wearing a striped shirt, white picket fence, shingles on a roof etc... you will 100% of the time get visible aliasing. If you limit your shots to close ups (e.g. head shots) , you may not see the artifacts.

720p mode in the 7d is absolutely the worst for aliasing. You can check for yourself, but it's almost unusable (unless you limit your shots to the content mentioned above). Check out other forums for technical reviews, test charts, examples. There are hundreds of threads on this exact topic about aliasing, and workarounds for rainbow moire, filters, chroma blurring, defocusing for shooting, blurring etc.... This is pretty much established fact, and the norm. If you don't see it in your shots, either you're shooting content like close ups, or you're not looking close enough. It is there. 1080p mode in the 7d is better, and less prone to aliasing.

Interesting that you post a LaForet video, because the initial 1D MK IV video "nocturne" was pulled because of the aliasing and moire. I repeat , all the DSLR's are prone to aliasing, rainbow moire when shooting video; but good shooting techniques, choice of selective content can minimize it. This is a hardware limitation due to sampling of the large sensor.

[papakilo]

Here is an indoor video (not mine) I found on youtube using the Flip Ultra HD

http://www.youtube.com/uatch?v=QPxd5NzEULg

[edDV]

If you don't need HD, why put up with MPeg artifacts (HDV or AVCHD)?

DV format takes unique frames, is low compressed and is simple to edit. In the consumer/prosumer range, the Sony VX-2100/PD170 have a great reputation for low light capability. If you don't like tape, you can easily direct record to a PC or Mac hard drive or use a Firestore disk recorder.

If you need better than that, there are many used SD broadcast level camcorders and cameras available cheap as the broadcasters convert to local HD broadcasting. These cameras have 3x 1/3" or larger sensors and high quality lenses.

Beyond that there are specialty industrial/security video cameras optimized for low light.

[mp3superfreak]

Canon just announced an update to the Rebel DSLR the 550D/T2i. At the suggested price points of $799/899 US (body only or w/kit lens), I'm not sure you will find a better low light camera / HD Camcorder at the price.

Also, just to counter poisiondethray's comments about the Canon DSLR's video - The 7D was used to create the Dorito's "Underdog" video which yielded $650,000 for the creators (recent Ad in Dorito's Superbowl Ad Contest). I'm not discounting your comments or technical opinions of the DSLR video, I just think the majority of people won't notice the issues you mention in most situations.

Another good test is to visit Vimeo.com and search for "Canon 7D". You'll see some truly amazing videos captured with this camera.

[MJA]

Tsort,

since all your doing is "documenting labratory experiments and photographic sessions" get the Canon VIXIA HV40 .it shoots in both HD,and SD

very popular with huge forum support http://www.hv20.com/

in my opinion Camcorder for filming,and cameras for still pictures

sorry but $1,699.00 DSLR(body only) Camera is too much .your not going to work for the national geographic right? lol

[edDV]

We need more info from Tsort to narrow the choice of camcorders/cameras.

[MJA]

We need more info from Tsort to narrow the choice of camcorders/cameras.

it's obviously he is looking for a camcorder under 1k.not a $1699 DSLR(body only)cam

off topic,

I wish they remove the Report somewhere else.lol i keep hitting that instead of of reply or quote

[Soopafresh]

The new T2i looks pretty decent. Darn good price. The 1:15-:1:20 footage creeps me out a bit, though.

[fishywishy]

all sony high def camcorders can shoot in mpeg2 in standard def. this format is widely supported and easy to edit

in theory, the new sony hdr-cx110/150 should be great in low light. it is available now, tho id wait for some reviews 1st. it has a decsent size sensor with the newest sony tech, and a low pixel count. the base model with no internal memory is $500. and the new sony cams can take sdhc cards fwiw

[Persistence]

Heck, save some money. For $299, you can get a Sony WX1 which has a back-lit sensor and F2.4 aperture that allow for very good 1280x720 mp4 video in very dim settings. The 24mm equivalent wide angle lens setting is also very good for cramped indoors settings.

I would not invest in a DSLR unless you care to invest a lot of time to master the device, as well as get all the lenses needed. The 34mbps h.264 MOV video also takes plenty of PC to edit too. And no auto focus!

[Atak_Snajpera]

Check this site! It has raw files (m2ts) so you can judge which is the best for you. I recommend this one ...
http://www.videoaktiv.de/Testvideos/Panasonic/Testvideo-Panasonic-HDC-TM-350.html

Canon comcorders are very weak in terms of noise in low light condidtions. Even s100 sucks!